User talk:Ideogram/Archive 8

I dropped NE2 a note

I agree that he shouldn't be deleting those comments. But they are mild personal attacks. WP:NPA. Please stop making them. Georgewilliamherbert 09:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect it will continue, but I hope you realize he expressed contempt for the entire GA process. --Ideogram 09:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing comments. You have removed M3tal H3ad's comment twice. --NE2 09:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Ideogram 09:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That would appear to be accidental as a side effect of editing back to the last version before you deleted his comments. However, it's correct that an editor has a responsibility not to undo other edits needlessly.

Also, WP:3RR, both of you. Georgewilliamherbert 09:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Near-3RR violation

You have violated 3RR on Culture of Taiwan. However, due to your self-revert, you now stand at three reverts on the page. Please discuss contested changes on the talk page instead of in edit summaries. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese film

Hi please allow time for the Lists of film to develop. I promise eventually we'll have a great documental list of the cinema of each country completed. THat list os now encyclopedic providing details in a film chronology -very good for understanding Taiwanese cinema THankyou ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 14:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life

You wrote "What can I say, I have no life". I wish that you can feel entirely good about contributing here. If you choose this to be your life, what's wrong with that? I've seen this argument so often used as a here as an allround cudgel (albeit not against me) that it makes me sick. If someone said that to me, I'd say "Are you leading such a perfect life that you need to tell others what to do with their lives?", or something like that. — Sebastian 00:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I enjoy insulting myself. I am actually quite happy contributing to Wikipedia. --Ideogram 00:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-)

BTW, I just joined IRC, but it looks quite dead to me. Can you see the three lines I entered? — Sebastian 01:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certified.Gangsta

Hi, Ideogram, I've seen this thread about Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) on WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Certified.Gangsta and I believe his disruptive behavior such as revert warring against consensus has gone too far. I believe it is time to file a RFC against Certified.Gangsta. I think there is enough evidence and users to support this RFC. You can reply here. Regards, LionheartX 13:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any point talking to Bishonen about Certified.Gangsta. --Sumple (Talk) 11:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

Thank you for your review. It is sincerely appreciated. I am not sure I would like to be an admin, but I am certainly interested in continuing my efforts in dispute resolution. However, I am a bit adverse to looking towards WP:MEDCOM, simply because I have a strong preference for an open DR process. I am unsure I would be comfortable with the high level of secrecy required in MEDCOM. I know this may limit my DR "career" a bit in Wikipedia, but with MEDCAB, 3O, peer review and RFC, it seems as though I can still remain quite active and provide a solid contribution. I have been taking a "buffet" approach to some extant because I'm trying to immerse myself a bit more in the broader Wikipedia world and find my place. So far, I've found WP:XFD and dispute resolution to be very interesting and accomodating to me, and I will probably continue to expand my participation in those areas. I've checked out WP:CEM at your suggestion and it certainly seems interesting, though I have some reservations. Per both reviews I've thus far received, I will likely look towards spending a little time each day on RC patrol. Thank you also for your many kind compliments, though I think you may give me more credit than I am due. Thank you again for your feedback. Vassyana 15:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally also prefer MedCab's approach over MedCom, but there are many mediators who view MedCab as a stepping-stone to MedCom and there is nothing wrong with that. I am glad to have helped you. --Ideogram 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche Intro MedCab case

Why did you change the status to "closed"? It isn't even close to being resolved. Also, is it proper for SlimVirgin to remove her name as one of the parties to the dispute? --Tsunami Butler 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This case is not being mediated as part of MedCab. Anyone can remove themselves from the list of parties. --Ideogram 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change the status to "closed"? --Tsunami Butler 14:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you, it's not part of MedCab. --Ideogram 16:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC cloak request

I am ideogram on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/ideogram. Thanks. --Ideogram 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring: Ideogram and Certified.Gangsta

Copied to both talk pages.

Glancing at your recent edits I notice that you've both been edit warring quite a lot over the past few days on at least two articles: Michelle Marsh ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) and Culture of Taiwan [7] [8] [9] [10] [11].

This isn't the sort of behavior we expect from established editors, and it certainly isn't helping to build a consensus on article content. Please avoid further edit warring and use the talk page to seek agreement. Because you're both edit warring on unrelated articles, it also looks as if you may both have a personal conflict. If so, I recommend that you both attempt to resolve that by mediation. --Tony Sidaway 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to discuss with him but he does not respond. --Ideogram 17:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by editwarning. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.

No personal attacks please

The community has had a lot of patience with you, but it may run out if you keep behaving this atrociously. What, for instance, do you mean by posting a lying personal attack on my page some nine or ten hours after I asked you not to post on it at all? "Do not revert war"— what's that supposed to mean? I don't revert war. (But you obviously do.) I reverted you once. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You call that a personal attack? That's insane. And I thought you were the one who didn't think people should be blocked for personal attacks. --Ideogram 21:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bish claiming to speak for the community is just laughable. --Ideogram 22:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh pfft "the community". Certified.Gangsta fanclub community, perhaps. --Sumple (Talk) 00:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Certified.Gangsta

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that a second person has certified the basis for this dispute, so the RfC is now approved. Accordingly, you may wish to make a statement outlining your point of view or add additional evidence to the page. Hopefully moving things into the formal dispute resolution process will centralize discussion and minimize bloodshed.--Danaman5 04:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that, thanks. I will add more information soon but I am kind of tired right now. --Ideogram 04:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be helpful to dig up all the diffs of C.G deleting well-meaning discussion/warnings etc from his talk page? It could evidence his unwillingness to discuss/heed warnings etc. There's a tonne of the stuff, I think. --Sumple (Talk) 23:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can do that. But I'll wait to see if he's coming back. --Ideogram 23:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of China...

...has a broken ref, specifically #18.--Rmky87 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?

Ideogram, I don't know who you are... Are you some kind of moderator?

Why are you threatening to block me? Have you read the revisions that I've made? I'm the one who has provided sources and justifications for my changes, which rectify erroneous information. Why are they not getting the warning for reverting without justification or support? I don't commit vandalism. I only make changes to correct inaccuracies that are largely beyond dispute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Penser (talk • contribs) 02:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A Bit Harsh

A bit harsh! You went straight to Template:Uw-delete3! What about assuming good faith? From now on Ideogram, I recommend Template:Uw-delete1 to start! Your own user pages says Assume good faith. I dont want to ask you again, So please calm down. Thankyou Paulhitthewall 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of China

Ideogram, what's the deal with editing the page? How come you reverted my deletion of the listing of the dynasties in the table on the PRC page with no justification? How come you threaten me, saying that I should be banned from editing when you refuse to justify your changes?

You seemed to indicate that some kind of consensus is needed. On the discussion page I posted the following below, and have received no arguments finding fault with my reasoning. Can I delete the irrelevant information about other governments in China, or will you revert it without explanation and threaten me again?

My points:

I don't believe this information is relevant to an article about the People's Republic of China. That would be completely appropriate to the article about China, but this is specifically about the People's Republic, i.e. under communist rule. Thus, the salient date is the founding of the PRC in 1949.Penser 12:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Penser

For example, if you look at the page for the Soviet Union, it only includes the dates when Russia was under Communist control. It doesn't include all important dates in Russian history, because that's not relevant to the period of Soviet control, which is what the article is about. Penser 13:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Penser

Penser 07:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Penser[reply]

Don't put this here. You need to convince the other editors of the article. Put it on Talk:People's Republic of China. --Ideogram 07:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan-ROC mass moves

Hi. Have you provided rationals for these mass moves? Is this being discussed somewhere central? Thanks. El_C 18:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Naming conventions. --Ideogram 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. El_C 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

209.43.23.38

Thank you for making a report about 209.43.23.38 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! —dgies^t_c 20:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsta

so what's going on with gangsta's rfc? I think he's BSing about holiday. Blueshirts 16:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC will stay open for a while and people can comment on it. I see he just came back, which is not a surprise. But I don't think he will be able to accomplish anything. --Ideogram 07:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Profumo

Hi Ideogram. Please note that WP:3RR is not tolerated on Wikipedia, and any statement about living persons must be sourced per WP:WLP. All future infractions may bring a WP:BLOCK, so please be careful. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 15:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GR promoted to FA

I don't know whether you've looked at Gwoyeu Romatzyh recently, but it was promoted to FA earlier today. Many thanks indeed for your thoughtful comments on the article, which have helped us bring it up to FA standard. All the best, --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not violate consensus

Stop violate decisions made by the community at CFD and DRV. [12] - Privacy 17:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the category exists doesn't mean there is consensus for what articles belong in it. --Ideogram 17:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the opinion of the community. - Privacy 17:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say what you think. --Ideogram 18:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pretend they didn't say. Just that you don't agree with them. - Privacy 18:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

Where is this list subpage you speak of? Colipon+(T) 21:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been transcluded onto the main WikiProject China talk page, so you can still see it, but edits to that section go to a subpage which won't show up on your watchlist unless you watchlist that subpage. --Ideogram 22:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a link to this "sub-page"? Colipon+(T) 22:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Naming Conventions. --Ideogram 22:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S.H.E importance scale

Awww, you changed it to its proper importance level. It was hilarious telling people that the article was listed as higher importance than the Geography of Taiwan while it lasted. Thanks for the change though. ;) - Pandacomics 11:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project suggestion

Thanks for your kind words. I'll bear Rom of Chin in mind next time I feel like undertaking a project! All the best. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

A request for arbitration has been filed. As a named party you will probably want to comment on the proposal. Durova^Charge! 06:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Taiwan A-class evaluation

I was wondering who I can ask for an A-class evaluation/review for the S.H.E article (you perhaps?). I was recommended for peer review, but it's been nearly three weeks since I posted the request (with no response), so I posted another request on the league of copyeditors, which has gotten no response over the past week. Thanks in advance. - Pandacomics 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really have an established A-class review process. Until we do, we aren't giving A-class to any articles. --Ideogram 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 11:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

amendment to naming convention

I have a suggestion for naming conventions related to Mandopop and Cantopop articles (although that would make things more complicated I think...)

When people say Taiwan on a pop music article, it means the music industry that is primarily located in the Republic of China. China in a C-pop article would imply the music industry located on the mainland, while Hong Kong is pretty self-explanatory. - Pandacomics 19:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be very bold, very blatant, and very obvious

When reverting Instantnood's future puppets. I noticed we were both reverting Privacy in a similarly speedy fashion last week, so, just a warning. User_talk:SchmuckyTheCat#Blocked SchmuckyTheCat 01:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

Per your request, your user page and the other user subpage you indicated have been deleted. Kafziel ^Talk 00:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, can you restore the most recent versions of each, without the edit history? --Ideogram 00:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure can. Kafziel ^Talk 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ideogram 00:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Bishonen

Thanks for pointing that out. --Sumple (Talk) 01:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 2

Due to your disruption on the RfArb workshop, in particular by making satirical proposals, you have been blocked for disruption. I am recusing from the case. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ideogram (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is no policy against making satirical proposals. This block will interfere with my ability to participate in an ArbCom case I am a party to.

Decline reason:

No, but you should not go out of your way to be disruptive. Making satifical proposals on arbcom cases is disruptive. — §hanel 02:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The arbitration case will not be ending in a hurry, secondly, there are limits to what RfArb can be used for. You are deliberately trying to incite an escalation. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bring up Giano. If anyone wants to talk about my interaction with Giano then I will defend myself. --Ideogram 02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I have stated many times that I will respond to warnings. A block is unnecessary here, and can be seen as punitive and not preventative. --Ideogram 02:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any substantive difference between making my point via satire and stating factually that something is my opinion and those asking me not to state it are not interested in whether it is true or not. If this comes up again I will repeat this statement on the RFAR page. --Ideogram 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a 48 hour block excessive? --Ideogram 03:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate Geogre, a user I have considerable history with, being able to comment on my evidence page without my being able to reply. --Ideogram 11:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email your response to the ArbCom mailing list. I can't think of it off of the top of my head, but it's at WP:AC somewhere. It will be read in full. // Sean William 11:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like it to be posted, since there is a court of public opinion here that is as important to me as the ArbCom. --Ideogram 11:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't wait two days to post a rebuttal, post it here and I will copy it over. I would like to suggest that you not overreact to Bishonen's evidence re:Giano. Until there is some proposal on the workshop such as "Ideogram is uncivil" citing Giano-related diffs, and it looks from the arbitrators' comments that they are taking it seriously, then there is no need for you to comment on Giano or even reply to Bishonen. On the other hand, if it does appear that your remarks about Giano are being considered by the arbitrators, then it certainly would be appropriate for you to note remarks by Giano that may be mitigating factors. Thatcher131 15:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer to help and your excellent advice. I will think about it. --Ideogram 17:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 48 hours. Why can't I edit? --Ideogram 02:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because there was an autoblock in place. I've removed it, try now. Bishonen | talk 02:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hey thanks Bishonen. I owe you. I'll try to be nice to you for 48 hours

--Ideogram 02:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested posts

Hello Thatcher. I would like to post the following under Proposed remedies 5 and 6:

Gangsta's edit warring is not limited to these articles; he has edit-warred on Keely Hazell and Michelle Marsh (model) and every other page he has touched. --Ideogram 17:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done. Thatcher131 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to post the following as reply to Geogre on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence#Observation (feel free to advise should you feel the wording needs work):

There has never been an RFC regarding me. Your eagerness to cite one without checking the facts reflects badly on your credibility. Your description of my actions in a conflict is laughable. In our last interaction, I never addressed you directly until you decided to attack me. I don't start flame wars, I end them. You're mad because I usually end them by making you look like an idiot, but if you would learn your lesson and stop flaming before I get there, this wouldn't happen. There is no support for the claim that I "gather up a group of brand new 'friends'" etc. The other parties from WPCHINA supported me here from the beginning. Don't jump to conclusions about good faith attempts to discuss the issues raised by our interaction with other parties. You didn't think I post only to attract your attention, do you?

Don't throw these vague allegations on the talk page. If you have supporting diffs, post them. I will be happy to explain my behaviour in each and every case. --Ideogram 17:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without intending to be partisan, may I suggest that there are a couple of words/phrases here that could have the effect of escalating the argument? I think you could make the point about no RFC and uncited allegations without the word "idiot" or directly attacking his "credibility." I would give the same advice to any arbitration participant. I will also post it as is if you are sure about it. Thatcher131 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I will think about the phrasing. I think you could be very helpful in keeping me out of trouble. --Ideogram 20:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to post the following to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence#Evidence presented by Ideogram:

Reply to Geogre

Geogre's contribution, as he himself admits, contains no evidence. It is personal, unsupported opinion. Geogre doesn't feel the need to prove anything he says. --Ideogram 17:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done. Thatcher131 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thatcher, here is my revised post. Hope this is better. --Ideogram 12:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been an RFC regarding me. Don't be so eager to cite one without checking the facts. Your description of my actions in a conflict is pure propaganda. In our last interaction, I never addressed you directly until you decided to attack me. I don't start flame wars, I end them. You're mad because I usually end them by making you look bad, but if you stopped flaming before I get there this wouldn't happen. There is no support for the claim that I "gather up a group of brand new 'friends'" etc. The other parties from WPCHINA supported me here from the beginning. Don't jump to conclusions about good faith attempts to discuss the issues raised by our interaction with other parties. You didn't think I post only to attract your attention, do you?

Don't throw these vague allegations on the talk page. If you have supporting diffs, post them. I will be happy to explain my behaviour in each and every case. --Ideogram 12:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done Thatcher131 16:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

The whole time I was gathering info and writing the articles (thinking they were very well written) I did not put consideration into the fact that I was using one author (although from several differen volumes), Needham, in editing the articles on Zhang Heng and Su Song! Lol. Your objection to both will be addressed shortly when I get a plethora of different sources on the two articles. Thanks for taking the time to look at either of them, though.--PericlesofAthens 15:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have updated the Su Song article (with 6 more sources than Needham) and placed it back as a nominee for a Good Article. Hope you like...--PericlesofAthens 18:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, way ahead of you on that one, dude, I'm already a member here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese history. Lol. Take care.--PericlesofAthens 01:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD

Your TfD has been speedy closed as, well, dumb. Your beef is with navigational templates in general and therefore should be taken to a discussion page for a 'very lengthy debate (that is, for at least several weeks, and probably several months), where hundreds upon hundreds of editors will have a chance to chime in. TfD is not the place for that very lengthy discussion.

If you have a specific argument against a specific template (that is, not just the same "I hate navigational templates" argument but directed at one template), please do feel free to list that individual template for deletion (although as a courtesy, please do it one at a time). Lexicon (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Province, Republic of China

Ideogram, Please understand that the administrative divisions of the Republic of China need to follow the Wikipedia Chinese naming conventions. This includes adding the province and the country. Adding (Taiwan) after Republic of China is also not correct. By that, you are equating ROC to Taiwan, which is incorrect even though Taiwan comprises much of the ROC's current jurisdiction. There are still Fujian islands Kinmen and Matsu + some people might think the ROC comprises all of China. I am not doing POV edits, merely following the rules set forth on Wikipedia. I did not invent them overnight. TingMing 20:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm just changing it back to the way it was before another user Jerrypp772000 came around and mass renamed all ROC related articles. And you should really watch some things carefully. Chen Shui-bian is the President of the Republic of China and has always been. He is not prez of Taiwan. I Cannot believe that you reverted that. That is simply astounding. You are being extremely counter productive. I am following precedent of other articles that are similar in content. I think you should not do that and follow the existing consensus and de facto status. TingMing 20:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are a liar. Very few of the articles you are editing were touched by Jerry. You don't understand how Wikipedia works. It is just as easy for people to revert you as it is for you to make your edits. None of your edits will stay unless you can get people to agree with you. --Ideogram 21:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are sad by calling people a liar. Clearly you have no life. and YOU ARE THE LIAR. Please have good faith. Jerrypp772000 touched so many articles and messed up Wikipedia. I cant believe you cant even recognize Chen Shui-bian article and keep reverting it. It is a symbol of your ignorance. TingMing 21:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get anywhere by insulting me. You have to convince the other interested editors, including Jerry, that you are right or they will all revert your edits. --Ideogram 21:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm the one who's messing up Wikipedia, at least I am not the one who got blocked for violating the 3RR.--Jerrypp772000 13:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry, I don't think there is any point trying to argue with this guy. If he keeps trying to make controversial edits, revert them until he is willing to discuss. --Ideogram 14:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is a sock of Nationalist because they have similar editing patterns (like editing without discussing). I had done that (revert their edits) before, and had been blocked 2 times for a total of 32 hrs because of it. I don't think it's worth it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrypp772000 (talk • contribs)

Just revert him once or twice per article. --Ideogram 01:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry, since my approach has been proven wrong, you should now file an ArbCom case against TingMing. I can assist you here or in email with the process. --Ideogram 07:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sending email via Wikipedia?

Hi, I'm sorry I'm not sure how to send email via Wikipedia, but you could either append to my talk page or send to the email address shown in the user box at the bottom of my user page. Look forward to hearing from you! Jpaulm 14:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's done! Sorry about that! Jpaulm 00:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

To Mackensen: You are perfectly free to choose expediency over principle. But if you do so, I do not belong here. --Ideogram 02:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I'll make it a messy fight first, so don't overestimate how expedient it will be. --Ideogram 02:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, This is not the place for making WP:POINT violations to disrupt. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot do any worse to me than make me leave. --Ideogram 03:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will anyone post my list of evidence regarding Giano for me? --Ideogram 03:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

I should have read more carefully. Kirill is not actually proposing any sanctions on me for my Giano-like behaviour, so he is proposing to treat the two of us the same after all.

Oh well, I don't expect I will have anything to say for the next four days anyway. --Ideogram 06:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

I'm not too happy about Kirill treating Gangsta and me exactly the same; Gangsta has edit-warred much more extensively than I have. I think it should be noted in my favour that I completely stopped reverting any of Gangsta's edits on April 10, while Gangsta has continued to revert-war this entire time.

That said, I must admit I have edit-warred, when I probably should have brought the case directly to ArbCom instead. I will certainly do this in the future. --Ideogram 06:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think my mistake could have been avoided if someone had advised me to go to ArbCom earlier. Note that I filed an RFC, which was deleted for not being certified, and asked on AN/I, where I was told it was a content dispute, before I ever revert-warred with Gangsta. I literally did not know how to deal with him. There is a culture here that views ArbCom as a last resort, and edit-warring is easy and seemingly without consequences.

Dealing with China/Taiwan issues we often run into "new" users like TingMing who show up and suddenly make sweeping changes across dozens of articles, while reverting anyone who opposes them. These people are very hard to deal with because all the established forms of dispute resolution do not seem to work. I am coming to the conclusion that such users should be brought to ArbCom as soon as possible; this is what I did in my early days here, and it seemed to work well. --Ideogram 07:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One concern, as seen in the current case, is that the arbitration is likely to drag on for weeks, with the user edit-warring the whole time. It's just too damn easy for a POV-warrior to return with a new untraceable account and tie up resources while our enforcement mechanisms slowly grind along. --Ideogram 07:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

The more I think about it, the more I think such people should be dealt with on AN/I instead of dragging through arbitration. When I asked about Gangsta on AN/I, the response was a shrugged, "What do you want us to do?" I asked for 2RR and was ignored. This entire sad process, all the time wasted poring over Gangsta's edit history, the fight on CSN, and the whole arbitration affair, could have been avoided if just one administrator decided to enforce 2RR on Gangsta.

Administrators should be allowed and encouraged to impose 2RR or 1RR directly on editors who are obviously violating the spirit of 3RR across multiple articles. This would quickly deal with users like Gangsta and TingMing without tempting other users like myself into edit-warring. --Ideogram 07:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real question

It all comes down to this: How should I have dealt with Gangsta? How should we now deal with TingMing? I explored all my options and spent an enormous amount of time and effort documenting Gangsta's problems and I am now faced with a proposal that treats me as his equal. Clearly from my perspective I should never have gotten involved and should have let him continue disrupting Wikipedia forever. It would be much more useful to me to get advice on how to handle such situations in the future rather than slapping me for my effort. --Ideogram 08:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have succeeded in dealing with Gangsta, at some personal cost to yourself. Because of the parole he has been put under, it will be much easier for the rest of us to deal with him. As for TingMing, while I would prefer he used Taiwan instead of Republic of China, I don't think that he is a problem in the way that Gangsta is. Best of luck, Ben Aveling 05:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Aveling, your support for LioheartX is getting a little embarassing. If you think I'm a problem and LionheartX is not, then you got some serious pro-Chinese bias (I wouldn't be surprised if you're Chinese yourself especially reading over Talk:List of Chinese American). Then you claimed me and ShuckyDucky are the same person without evidence. Now, you're supporting Ideogram after a series of harassment, personal attack, and abuse against me. You're hilarious.--Certified.Gangsta 06:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply on your talk page. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen's questionable blocks

I have several problems with Binguyen's blocks of me.

He never warns me to stop what he considers disruptive behaviour before blocking me.
His first block of me was overturned since the disruptive behaviour had ceased before he blocked me.
His second block of me was for a satirical RFAR proposal, which is not the same thing as disruptive behaviour.
His third block of me was for a statement which could have been interpreted as a threat to disrupt, but that is also not the same thing as actual disruptive behaviour.
He escalates his blocks much too quickly. I did not understand why his second block was for 48 hours, but since his third block was for 96 hours, I now realize he is doubling the block length for each successive case of what he considers "disruption". At a minimum the second block should be for 24 hours and the third one for 48 hours, since the first block was overturned and should not be considered part of the "pattern" he perceives.

Even if this particular block is not overturned, I request that Blnguyen not be involved in blocking me again.

--Ideogram 15:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave a note inviting Blnguyen to comment here before the block is reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. In general, blocks of a party for comments made on the pages of that party's own arbitration case should be avoided. However, in this case, as I commented at the time, your self-destructive behavior was extreme. Newyorkbrad 16:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I get to remain blocked until Blnguyen gets around to defending himself? Is this the way you would treat this kind of behaviour by an admin who was not a sitting arbitrator? For what it's worth, I've admitted my actions were wrong and do not intend to continue. --Ideogram 16:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost always request the blocking administrator's comments before processing an unblock request and so do most other admins. Of course, if there is no response within a reasonable amount of time, I conduct the review on my own. As it happens, I have personally overturned an unrelated block by Blnguyen, so your suspicion that I am giving this block special treatment because he is an arbitrator is completely unpersuasive.

The fact that you acknowledge that your actions were wrong and promise not to repeat them is new information. Previously, you had acknowledged that you had misunderstood the remedies in the proposed arbitration decision, but not that your actions were inappropriate. This is a significant factor that will be taken into account in deciding whether the 96-hour block should be reduced or not. Such new information should be assessed, in the first instance, by the original blocking admin if he or she is available.

In any event, given my prior involvement with this matter, and also given your apparent objection to my having asked Blnguyen for comment, I will not review this block but will leave it for another, independent administrator. Newyorkbrad 16:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no no, I'm not objecting to asking Blnguyen for comment. I'm objecting to letting the block stand until he has time to comment. I find your comments fair and reasonable. --Ideogram 16:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked you, contingent on your promise not to drag Giano et al. into the case further. Kirill Lokshin 16:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]